Jessica Rooks, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service
[2024] EWHC 1941 (Admin)
R v AYP
23 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 952
Court of Appeal
A judge stopped a case about someone having a knife, saying it wasted court time. The prosecution appealed, arguing the judge shouldn't have overridden their decision to proceed. The appeal court agreed, saying the prosecution has the right to decide who to prosecute. The case will now restart before a different judge.
Key Facts
- •The defendant, AYP, was charged with possessing a bladed article (a butter knife) contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
- •AYP had gone to a Citizens Advice Bureau stating he was hearing voices telling him to kill someone, and possessed a butter knife.
- •The Crown Court judge ordered the indictment to lie on the file, halting the prosecution without the consent of the prosecution.
- •The prosecution appealed under sections 57(4) and 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
- •The prosecution argued the judge's decision was wrong in law and unreasonable.
Legal Principles
Prosecution appeals under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are permitted even for rulings that don't definitively end the prosecution, provided the prosecution gives an acquittal undertaking (section 58(8)).
R v Y [2008] EWCA Crim 10, R v B [2009] EWCA Crim 99
Section 58(4) and Criminal Procedure Rule 38.2 require 'immediate' notice of intent to appeal or a request for an adjournment to consider appealing. The definition of 'immediate' depends on the circumstances, balancing the need for prompt action against the complexities of the case.
R v Mian [2012] EWCA Crim 792, R v Quillan [2015] EWCA Crim 538, R v O [2008] EWCA Crim 463
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has the constitutional independence to make prosecutorial decisions; a trial judge cannot substitute their judgment for that of the CPS.
Connolly v DPP [1964] AC 1254
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the prosecution's appeal.
The judge's decision to halt the prosecution was wrong in law as it usurped the CPS's prosecutorial authority. While the judge's concerns about court resources and the defendant's pre-trial custody were understandable, they didn't justify overriding the CPS's decision to prosecute. The procedural requirements of section 58(4) were deemed met.
The Crown Court proceedings were ordered to resume at a different venue and before a different judge.
To avoid any perception of bias given the judge's previously expressed views.
Reporting restrictions under section 71 of the 2003 Act were lifted, except for the defendant's identification.
The judgment deals primarily with legal procedure and publishing it poses minimal risk of prejudicing the ongoing proceedings.